> > Perhaps they wouldn't feel the need to pay women to get married if they didn't already pay those same women to stay unmarried.
>
> Some more information would be extremely useful.
> Ellmyruh

Sure. Sam and others alluded to the same problems I was thinking of, which are perverse welfare incentives.

Poor women with several children and no husband can maintain a higher standard of living on welfare than if they were married and both parents worked. In many states, aid is unavailable to a woman if the father of her child lives with her. The more fatherless children, the more money given. This situation is declining, not because of reform, but because more programs were started that pay people for the opposite, remaining together. Naturally, most people find this repulsive, but the incentives nevertheless are successful wherever pointed.

And a statistic, which you can take or leave: "In the 1940s, less than 10% of all black babies were born out of wedlock; by 1982, more than 50% of them were illegitimate. The number living in poverty tripled from 1959 to 1982. Easily accessible welfare payments had the same effect as guaranteed income. Individuals had less incentive to work and to maintain a family structure. Consequently, fewer did."
"Welfare and Poverty," NCPA Policy Report No.107 (Dallas, Tex.: National Center for Policy Analysis, 1983), p. 3
To teenage black mothers, the numbers say about 82% of births are out of wedlock.

Charity to help unwed or poor mothers is a wonderful thing. It's just that, while private charities would help the mother improve her own life, government "charity" is currently geared toward encouraging dependence and buying votes.

gabby